Global warming???

[aussiepride]

Originally Posted by Amy

How anyone can be so collossally retarded as to deny a century of observed facts, which show a direct correlating graph between antropogenic carbon emissions and global climate is beyond me. I swear the only possible way is if the individual is Anacephalic (The medical term for being born without a brain).

Okay, so maybe that was a little too much hyperbole there, but seriously, anyone who takes more than a few minutes to look at the accumulated evidence cannot fail to end up agreeing with the consensus of the world's climate scientists. I can however understand the US being the bastion of opposition to reality, when it is the nation renowned for people who regularly view media sources which have been statistically proven to make you LESS well informed about current affairs than someone who gets no news whatsoever.

I direct anyone unfortunate enough to be in this situation to view all of the following:


For an overview:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scienti...climate_change

The facts, made easy. A series of videos on the science, and what it undeniably says:
http://www.youtube.com/playlist?list...8&feature=plcp

In easier to digest short videos, every argument ever against the reality, debunked:
http://www.youtube.com/playlist?list...3&feature=plcp

1. why has the global temperatures stopped rising in the last 5+ years
2. explain how man caused the last ice age and then rapid increase in temperatures 10,000 years ago to have the world at its present state? and also explain the rapid changes in temperature "little ice age" in the 18th century and the many other changes in temperature over time

a basic lesson taught in science and maths is "Correlation does not imply causation" and "cause and effect"

if you follow your logic then not only is global warming caused an increase in global temperatures (in the past) but it also has caused global temperatures to remain steady, if not decline (as it is at present).

any scientist knows the dangers of extrapolating beyond what they have measured (ie reading into the future).
although global warming is a widely accepted idea, it is by no means unanimously accepted, and still remains a hotly debated issue within the scientific community (not the same articles that get published in wikipedia), and there are many eminent researchers who do not see what you seem to see in the evidence.

Haven’t you noticed that governments have stopped calling it global warming and now refer to it as "climate change"?

and lastly i am all for scientific debate, hell while something is not proven, neither side is right, and debating and discussing helps exchange of ideas and makes people strive to prove ideas with... evidence... but calling people colossally retarded and anencephalic is a tad extreme.

anyway, always willing to be proven wrong.

regards

your brain dead retard friend

[Amy]

Originally Posted by aussiepride

1. why has the global temperatures stopped rising in the last 5+ years

They have not.

Originally Posted by aussiepride

2. explain how man caused the last ice age and then rapid increase in temperatures 10,000 years ago to have the world at its present state? and also explain the rapid changes in temperature "little ice age" in the 18th century and the many other changes in temperature over time

The last ice age was indeed natural. Temperatures rose as in line with projections you could have made back then based on the environment at the time, something they are NOT doing at present.

Originally Posted by aussiepride

any scientist knows the dangers of extrapolating beyond what they have measured (ie reading into the future).

And yet, so far almost 100% of the predictions made int he last 30 years have been correct. That's what we call reliable projections.

Originally Posted by aussiepride

although global warming is a widely accepted idea, it is by no means unanimously accepted

Yes, it really is. That's why only the same crank books which publish stories about aliens building the pyramids ever publish anything by opponents of the idea. Most of whom are not scienctists so don't know what they are talking about in the first place.

Originally Posted by aussiepride

Haven?t you noticed that governments have stopped calling it global warming and now refer to it as "climate change"?

We began using that term when we realised it was more accurate as it encompasses the changes which occur globally as a result of average global temperature increasing (including certain streams shifting or stopping, which leads to cooling in some areas, and including different environmental effects suh as desertification, flooding, etc)

Originally Posted by aussiepride

and lastly i am all for scientific debate, hell while something is not proven, neither side is right, and debating and discussing helps exchange of ideas and makes people strive to prove ideas with... evidence...

Like creationism. There is not any evidence for one side, but GAZILLIONS of bits of evidence for the other, ALL of which corroborate each other, from billions of different sources, be it arctic ice cores, south american river mud, directly recorded temperatures across the world, satellite imagery, tree rings, etc...
I fully acept that debate has proven useful, it has led to every possible angle being explored. Now we have the avidence from all the new lines of ingestigation which debate has spurred, and they all confirm each other.

Originally Posted by aussiepride

anyway, always willing to be proven wrong.

Good, because as soon as you do any research you'll know you have been.
I recommend getting your info from good, solid, respected scientific journals like Nature, rather than from uneducated babbling fools with nothing more than a diploma in journalism, like Christopher Monckton.

[aussiepride]

Originally Posted by Amy

They have not.

Good, because as soon as you do any research you'll know you have been.
I recommend getting your info from good, solid, respected scientific journals like Nature, rather than from uneducated babbling fools with nothing more than a diploma in journalism, like Christopher Monckton.

although not naure... All four agencies that track Earth's temperature (the Hadley Climate Research Unit in Britain, the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies in New York, the Christy group at the University of Alabama, and Remote Sensing Systems Inc in California) report that (global temperature) it cooled by about 0.7C in 2007. This is the fastest temperature change in the instrumental record and it puts us back where we were in 1930. If the temperature does not soon recover, we will have to conclude that global warming is over... an article published in 2008.

[aussiepride]

Originally Posted by Amy

The last ice age was indeed natural. Temperatures rose as in line with projections you could have made back then based on the environment at the time, something they are NOT doing at present.
.

projections made by rodent like repltiles that most closely resembled humans at that time?
"correlation does not mean causation"
a simple rise in c02 gases was not to blame for the end of the last ice age (nor the an inverse cause for it).

all global warming :theroies did not put a end date to projections. they were simply that.. projections.